Subsidizing Democracy

How Public Funding Changes Elections and How It Can Work in the Future

by Michael G. Miller

Publication Year: 2013

In the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the case that allowed corporate and union spending in elections, many Americans despaired over the corrosive influence that private and often anonymous money can have on political platforms, campaigns, and outcomes at the federal and state level. In McComish v. Bennett (2011), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the matching funds feature of so-called “Clean Elections” public financing laws, but there has been no strong challenge to the constitutionality of public funding as such. In Subsidizing Democracy, Michael G. Miller considers the impact of state-level public election financing on political campaigns through the eyes of candidates. Miller’s insights are drawn from survey data obtained from more than 1,000 candidates, elite interview testimony, and twenty years of election data. This book is therefore not only an effort to judge the effects of existing public election funding but also a study of elite behavior, campaign effects, and the structural factors that influence campaigns and voters.

The presence of publicly funded candidates in elections, Miller reports, results in broad changes to the electoral system, including more interaction between candidates and the voting public and significantly higher voter participation. He presents evidence that by providing neophytes with resources that would have been unobtainable otherwise, subsidies effectively manufacture quality challengers. Miller describes how matching-funds provisions of Clean Elections laws were pervasively manipulated by candidates and parties and were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court. A revealing book that will change the way we think about campaign funding, Subsidizing Democracy concludes with an evaluation of existing proposals for future election policy in light of Miller’s findings.

Cover

Title Page, Copyright, Dedication

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

On June 30, 2011, comedian Stephen Colbert launched a satirical assault
on the campaign finance environment in the United States. Standing on
the front steps of the Federal Election Commission building, Colbert announced
that he had received approval to use his television show on Comedy
Central as a vehicle to “raise unlimited monies” for his Colbert Super...

1. Why Public Funding?

In American politics, money matters. As the role of political money
has changed over time, campaign finance reforms have tried to keep pace.
Regulations have been constructed to restore fairness, opportunity, and
integrity to American elections. Fair elections are essential to any democratic
system, but so is the absence of unreasonable restrictions on political...

2. Strategic Candidates and Public Funding

In our search for the effects of public funding, the first step is to recognize
that participation is likely to change the strategic considerations
that candidates make since it dramatically affects the costs—in several
areas—that they must pay to wage a viable campaign. The recognition
of this dynamic is important because an altered cost-benefit calculus will...

3. Campaign Time

Public funding holds great potential to affect the financial fortunes of
participating candidates, but it is equally likely to change how they use
their time. Whether the act of fundraising is “bad” in a normative sense
is debatable, but it stands to reason that since public funding frees them
from fundraising obligations, participating candidates are likely to pursue...

4. Voting Behavior

Particularly during presidential election years, state legislative candidates
face a challenge in capturing the attention of voters, who are more likely to
focus on high-profile races. But given that full public funding heightens interaction
between the public and candidates, it seems reasonable to expect
that the subsidizing of campaigns will also have implications for mass voting...

5. Candidate Quality

When it comes to assessing public funding’s efficacy as policy, no
outcome has received more attention from political scientists than its potential
to enhance electoral competition. This focus is understandable,
given the relatively uncompetitive nature of American politics. It is a
well-documented truth that when incumbents seek reelection to Congress...

6. Ideology and Partisan Participation

Although subsidies impart a clear benefit to the fundraising-challenged,
other candidates might view a publicly funded campaign as having a
higher net cost than a traditionally financed one. For instance, those who
can easily self-fund may find the qualification costs to be relatively onerous.
More likely, however, those candidates who perceive participation...

7. Clean Elections at the Supreme Court

On March 28, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral
arguments in McComish v. Bennett, a First Amendment challenge to the
matching funds provisions of Arizona’s Clean Elections law. The case
was consolidated with Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC
v. Bennett (since they were argued together, I refer to both cases with the...

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decisions have narrowed the available policy
options when it comes to campaign finance, but it is important to note that
the Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of optional public
funding programs established in Buckley, despite ample opportunity to
strike them down. The Court has held that it is the government’s prerogative...

Welcome to Project MUSE

Use the simple Search box at the top of the page or the Advanced Search linked from the top of the page to find book and journal content. Refine results with the filtering options on the left side of the Advanced Search page or on your search results page. Click the Browse box to see a selection of books and journals by: Research Area, Titles A-Z, Publisher, Books only, or Journals only.